Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ecosystem Services Scales
Ecosystem Services Scales
Ecosystem Services Scales
net/publication/222704896
CITATIONS READS
1,493 6,509
4 authors:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ekko C. van Ierland on 20 July 2014.
ANALYSIS
Abstract
Since the late 1960s, the valuation of ecosystem services has received ample attention in scientific literature. However, to
date, there has been relatively little elaboration of the various spatial and temporal scales at which ecosystem services are
supplied. This paper analyzes the spatial scales of ecosystem services, and it examines how stakeholders at different spatial
scales attach different values to ecosystem services. The paper first establishes an enhanced framework for the valuation of
ecosystem services, with specific attention for stakeholders. The framework includes a procedure to assess the value of
regulation services that avoids double counting of these services. Subsequently, the paper analyses the spatial scales of
ecosystem services: the ecological scales at which ecosystem services are generated, and the institutional scales at which
stakeholders benefit from ecosystem services. On the basis of the proposed valuation framework, we value four selected
ecosystem services supplied by the De Wieden wetlands in The Netherlands, and we analyze how these services accrue to
stakeholders at different institutional scales. These services are the provision of reed for cutting, the provision of fish, recreation,
and nature conservation. In the De Wieden wetland, reed cutting and fisheries are only important at the municipal scale,
recreation is most relevant at the municipal and provincial scale, and nature conservation is important in particular at the
national and international level. Our analysis shows that stakeholders at different spatial scales can have very different interests
in ecosystem services, and we argue that it is highly important to consider the scales of ecosystem services when valuation of
services is applied to support the formulation or implementation of ecosystem management plans.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
often underestimated in decision making (Helliwell, ation of ecosystem services, specifically considering
1969; Odum and Odum, 1972). Since then, economic the issue of double counting of services—one of the
valuation of ecosystems has received much attention remaining issues in ecosystem valuation (De Groot et
in scientific literature. Methodologies for the valua- al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003).
tion of ecosystem services have been developed by, The framework consists of four steps, and reflects
among others, Dixon and Hufschmidt (1986), Pearce current thinking on ecosystem services valuation.
and Turner (1990), Freeman (1993), and Hanley and Subsequently, we assess the spatial scales at which
Spash (1993), whereas the value of the services of a ecosystem services are supplied. Based upon this
particular ecosystem has been assessed by, for exam- assessment, we propose to extend the framework
ple, Ruitenbeek (1994), Kramer et al. (1995) and Van with a fifth step, dealing with scales and stakeholders,
Beukering et al. (2003). In addition, several studies in order to enhance the applicability of ecosystem
have provided frameworks for the valuation of eco- services valuation for decision making. To illustrate
system services (Costanza et al., 1997; Turner et al., the expanded framework, as well as the relevance of
2000; De Groot et al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem spatial scales, a case study is presented. The case
Assessment, 2003). study includes a valuation of the ecosystem services
To date, relatively little elaboration of the scales supplied by the De Wieden wetland in The Nether-
of ecosystem services has taken place (Millennium lands, and an assessment of the scales at which these
Ecosystem Assessment, 2003; Turner et al., 2003). services are delivered. The De Wieden case study is
Ecosystem services are supplied at various spatial based upon fieldwork, in which quantitative informa-
and temporal scales, which has a strong impact on tion on visitor numbers has been collected, and inter-
the value different stakeholders attach to the ser- views with all major stakeholders of the area,
vices. Analyzing scales is important in order to conducted in the period January–September 2003.
reveal the interests of different stakeholders in eco- The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, a
system management. It can also be used as a basis basic framework for the assessment of ecosystem
for establishing compensation payments to local services is established. In Section 3, the spatial scales
stakeholders that face opportunity costs of ecosys- of ecosystem services are analyzed and an extension
tem conservation (Tacconi, 2000). In addition, it of the framework is proposed. In Section 4, the frame-
provides insight in the appropriate institutional work is applied to the De Wieden wetland. This is
scales for decision making on ecosystem manage- followed by a discussion of the overall implications of
ment. This is highly relevant in the context of The spatial scales for ecosystem management in Section 5.
Netherlands, where the national government is cur- Section 6 summarizes the main conclusions of the
rently considering decentralization of the responsi- paper.
bilities for the management of nature reserves
(VROM, 2004). Hence, there is a need to examine
the various scales at which ecosystem services are 2. The ecosystem services valuation framework
generated and used, and, subsequently, how the
supply of ecosystem services affects the interests Based upon a literature review, this section estab-
of stakeholders at different scales (Tacconi, 2000; lishes a framework for the valuation of ecosystem
Turner et al., 2000, 2003; Millennium Ecosystem services. The framework includes three types of ser-
Assessment, 2003). vices and four types of value, and is based upon
Therefore, in this paper, we analyze the spatial Pearce and Turner (1990), Costanza et al. (1997),
scales at which ecosystem services are supplied, and De Groot et al. (2002) and Millennium Ecosystem
the implications of these scales for the values attached Assessment (2003). The framework is presented in
to ecosystem services by different stakeholders. For a Fig. 1. It is applicable to all ecosystems, but it will in
discussion of the temporal scales, the reader is re- general be more useful to apply it to natural or semi-
ferred to, for example, Howarth and Norgaard (1993) natural (modified) ecosystems. This because of the
and Hanley (1999). On the basis of existing literature, specific attention paid to the goods and services pro-
we first present a consistent framework for the valu- vided by the regulation and cultural services, which
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 211
Fig. 1. The ecosystem valuation framework. The solid arrows represent the most important links between the elements of the framework. The
dashed arrows indicate the four principal steps in the valuation of ecosystem services.
are often higher in natural and semi-natural systems 2.2. Assessment of the services supplied by the
(Pearce and Turner, 1990; De Groot, 1992; Costanza ecosystem (step 2)
et al., 1997).
Following this framework, valuation of ecosys- Ecosystem services are the goods or services
tem services consists of four steps: (i) specification provided by the ecosystem to society, and provide
of the boundaries of the ecosystem to be valued; the basis for the valuation of the ecosystem. The
(ii) assessment of the ecosystem services supplied supply of ecosystem services will often be variable
by the system; (iii) valuation of the ecosystem over time, and, where relevant, both actual and
services; and (iv) aggregation or comparison of potential future supplies of services have to be in-
the values of the services. These steps are discussed cluded in the valuation (Drepper and Månsson, 1993;
below. Barbier, 2000; Mäler, 2000). We propose to distin-
guish three different categories of ecosystem ser-
2.1. Specification of the boundaries of the ecosystem vices: dproduction services,T dregulation servicesT
to be valued (step 1) and dcultural services,T based upon De Groot et al.
(2002) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Valuation (as any other analysis) requires that the (2003). Table 1 presents the three categories, as
object of the valuation is clearly defined. The Con- well as an overview of the various ecosystem ser-
vention on Biological Diversity provided the follow- vices in each category.
ing definition of an ecosystem ba dynamic complex of Contrary to the Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
plant, animal and micro-organism communities and ment (2003), we do not distinguish the category
their nonliving environment interacting as a functional dsupporting services,T which represents the ecologi-
unitQ (United Nations, 1992). However, we argue that cal processes that underlie the functioning of the
a spatial definition is required to describe the ecosys- ecosystem. Their inclusion in valuation may lead to
tem to be valued, and we use the following definition double counting—their value is reflected in the
of an ecosystem: dthe individuals, species and popula- other three types of services. In addition, there
tions in a spatially defined area, the interactions are a very large number of ecological processes
among them, and those between the organisms and that underlie the functioning of ecosystems, and it
the abiotic environmentT (Likens, 1992). The ecosys- is unclear on which basis supporting services
tem to be valued may contain a number of different should be included in, or excluded from a valuation
(sub-)ecosystems. study.
212 L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228
Table 1
List of ecosystem services (based upon Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981; Costanza et al., 1997; De Groot et al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2003)
Category Definition Examples of goods and services provided
Production services Production services reflect goods and services produced Provision of:
in the ecosystem. –Food
–Fodder (including grass from pastures)
–Fuel (including wood and dung)
–Timber, fibers and other raw materials
–Biochemical and medicinal resources
–Genetic resources
–Ornamentals
Regulation services Regulation services result from the capacity of –Carbon sequestration
ecosystems to regulate climate, hydrological and –Climate regulation through regulation of albedo,
bio-chemical cycles, earth surface processes, and a temperature and rainfall patterns
variety of biological processes. –Regulation of the timing and volume of river and
ground water flows
–Protection against floods by coastal or riparian systems
–Regulation of erosion and sedimentation
–Regulation of species reproduction (nursery function)
–Breakdown of excess nutrients and pollution
–Pollination
–Regulation of pests and pathogens
–Protection against storms
–Protection against noise and dust
–Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF)
Cultural services Cultural services relate to the benefits people –Nature and biodiversity (provision of a habitat for wild
obtain from ecosystems through recreation, cognitive plant and animal species)
development, relaxation, and spiritual reflection. –Provision of cultural, historical and religious heritage
(e.g., a historical landscape or a sacred forests)
–Provision of scientific and educational information
–Provision of opportunities for recreation and tourism
–Provision of attractive landscape features enhancing
housing and living conditions (amenity service)
–Provision of other information (e.g., cultural or artistic
inspiration)
Before the services can be valued, they have to service can be valued. An example of a regulation
be assessed in bio-physical terms. For production service that does usually not require spatially ex-
services, this involves the quantification of the flows plicit assessment prior to valuation is the carbon
of goods harvested in the ecosystem, in a physical sequestration service—the value of the carbon stor-
unit. For most regulation services, quantification age does not depend upon where it is sequestered.
requires spatially explicit analysis of the bio-physi- Cultural services depend upon a human interpreta-
cal impact of the service on the environment in or tion of the ecosystem, or of specific characteristics
surrounding the ecosystem. For example, valuation of the ecosystem. They have also been named
of the hydrological service of a forest first requires dinformation services,T as in De Groot et al.
an assessment of the precise impact of the forest on (2002). The benefits people obtain from cultural
the water flow downstream, including such aspects services depend upon experiences during actual vis-
as the reduction of peak flows, and the increase in its to the area, indirect experiences derived from an
dry season water supply (Bosch and Hewitt, 1982). ecosystem (e.g., through nature movies), and more
The reduction of peak flows and flood risks is only abstract cultural and moral considerations (see, e.g.,
relevant in a specific zone around the river bed, Aldred, 1994). Assessment of cultural services
which needs to be (spatially) defined before the requires assessment of the numbers of people
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 213
benefiting from the service, and the type of interac- correct, the quasi-option value is in practice
tion they have with the ecosystem involved. very difficult to assess (Turner et al., 2000).
(iv) None-use values. Non-use values are derived
2.3. Valuation of the ecosystem services (step 3) from attributes inherent to the ecosystem itself
(Cummings and Harrison, 1995; Van Koppen,
The values that are attributed to ecosystem services 2000). Hargrove (1989) has pointed out that
depend upon the stakeholders benefiting from these non-use values can be anthropocentric, as in
services. The classic definition of a stakeholder is the case of natural beauty, as well as eco-
bany group or individual who can affect or is affected centric, e.g., related to the notion that animal
by the achievement of the organization’s objectiveQ and plant species may have a certain dright to
(Freeman, 1984). For ecosystem valuation, we modify exist.T Kolstad (2000) distinguishes three
this definition into bany group or individual who can types of non-use value: existence value
affect or is affected by the ecosystem’s services.Q The (based on utility derived from knowing that
value of ecosystem services depends upon the views something exists), altruistic value (based on
and needs of stakeholders (Vermeulen and Koziell, utility derived from knowing that somebody
2002), and there is a mutual and dynamic relationship else benefits) and bequest value (based on
between ecosystem services and stakeholders. The utility gained from future improvements in
services supplied by an ecosystem determine the rel- the well-being of one’s descendants). The dif-
evant stakeholders, and the stakeholders determine ferent categories of non-use value are often
relevant ecosystem services. The four value types difficult to separate, both conceptually (Wei-
that stakeholders can attribute to ecosystem services kard, 2002) and empirically (Kolstad, 2000).
are discussed below. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that
there are different motives to attach non-use
(i) Direct use values. Direct use values arise from value to an ecosystem service, and that these
human direct utilization of ecosystems (Pearce motives depend upon the moral, aesthetic and
and Turner, 1990), for example, through the sale other cultural perspectives of the stakeholders
or consumption of a piece of fruit. All produc- involved.
tion services, and some cultural services (such
as recreation) have direct use value. Applicable valuation methods differ for private
(ii) Indirect use values. Indirect use values stem and public services. The marginal value of private
from the indirect utilization of ecosystems, in goods can generally be derived from market prices,
particular through the positive externalities that whereas marginal values of public goods have to be
ecosystems provide (Munasinghe and Schwab, established using non-market valuation techniques.
1993). This reflects the type of benefits that These include dstated preferenceT approaches,
regulation services provide to society. such as the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM)
(iii) Option values. Because people are unsure about and related methods, and drevealed preferenceT
their future demand for a service, they are wil- approaches. Revealed preference techniques use a
ling to pay to keep open the option of using a link with a market good or service to indicate the
resource in the future—insofar as they are, to willingness-to-pay for the service. Valuation of non-
some extent, risk averse (Weisbrod, 1964; use values is particularly cumbersome. Different
Pearce and Turner, 1990). Option values may authors have tried to express them in monetary
be attributed to all services supplied by an eco- values (see Nunes and van den Bergh, 2001) or
system. Various authors also distinguish quasi- non-monetary indicators (Wathern et al., 1986; Mar-
option value (e.g., Hanley and Spash, 1993), gules and Usher, 1981). For details on valuation
which represents the value of avoiding irrevers- techniques, see Dixon and Hufschmidt (1986),
ible decisions until new information reveals Pearce and Turner (1990), Hanley and Spash
whether certain ecosystems have values we are (1993), Pearce and Moran (1994), Willis and Gar-
not currently aware of. Although theoretically rod (1995), and Brouwer et al. (1997).
214 L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228
2.4. Aggregation or comparison of the values (step 4) service). In the first case, it is the spatial configura-
tion, and the interactions with ecosystems or society
In principle, the four value types are exclusive and outside the studied system, that determine the value of
may be added. The sum of the direct use, indirect use the service. For example, if an ecosystem is support-
and option values equals the total use value of the ing a population of bees that plays an important role in
system; the sum of the use value and the non-use the pollination of crops in adjacent fields, this should
value is the total value of the ecosystem (Pearce and be included in the valuation. Regulation services also
Turner, 1990). If all values have been expressed as a need to be included if they provide a direct benefit to
monetary value, and if the values are expressed society. An example of a service that provides a direct
through comparable indicators (e.g., consumer and/ benefit is the service dprotection against noise and
or producer surplus), the values can be summed. If dustT provided by a green belt besides a highway. If
non-monetary indicators are used for the non-use this affects the living conditions of people living
values, the values can be presented side-by-side— inside the study area, it needs to be included in the
leaving it to the reader to compare the two value valuation. Note that a prerequisite for applying this
types (as in Strijker et al., 2000). Alternatively, they approach to the valuation of regulation services is that
can be compared using Multi Criteria Assessment the ecosystem needs to be defined in terms of its
(MCA). With MCA, stakeholders can be asked to spatial boundaries—otherwise the external impacts
assign relative weights to different sets of indicators of the regulation services cannot be precisely defined.
(non-monetary as well as monetary), enabling com-
parison of the indicators (Nijkamp and Spronk, 1979;
Costanza and Folke, 1997). Different stakeholder 3. Scales of ecosystem services
groups can be expected to have different perspectives
on the importance of the different types of value Scales refer to the physical dimension, in space or
(Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002). Through group valu- time, of phenomena or observations (O’Neill and
ation, or the use of deliberative processes, stake- King, 1998). Ecosystem services are supplied to the
holders can be encouraged to converge to a economic system at a range of spatial and temporal
representative assessment of the values of different scales, varying from the short-term, site level (e.g.,
ecosystem services (O’Neill, 2001). amenity services) to the long-term, global level (e.g.,
An important issue in the valuation of ecosystem carbon sequestration) (Turner et al., 2000; Limburg et
services is the double counting of services (Millenni- al., 2002;). Scales and stakeholders are often correlat-
um Ecosystem Assessment, 2003; Turner et al., 2003). ed, as the scale at which the ecosystem service is
The various processes involved in the regulation ser- supplied determines which stakeholders may benefit
vices are paramount to the functioning of ecosystems, from it (Vermeulen and Koziell, 2002). This section
and in that sense underlie many other services. How- analyses (i) scales of ecosystems; (ii) scales of socio-
ever, including both the regulation and these other economic systems; and (iii) scales and stakeholders in
services in the assessment of the total value of an relation to ecosystem services. Subsequently, it pro-
ecosystem may lead to double counting. For example, poses a fifth step to be added to the valuation frame-
pollination is crucial to sustaining the fruit production work described in the previous section, dealing with
of an area. Including both the pollination service and the analysis of scales and stakeholders.
the service dproduction of fruitT would lead to double
counting—the value of the pollination of fruit trees is 3.1. Scales of ecosystems
already included in the value of the fruits. In this
paper, it is proposed to deal with double counting According to its original definition, ecosystems can
by arguing that regulation services should only be be defined at a wide range of spatial scales (Tansley,
included in the valuation if (i) they have an impact 1935). These range from the level of a small lake up to
outside the ecosystem to be valued; and/or (ii) if they the boreal forest ecosystem spanning several thou-
provide a direct benefit to people living in the area sands of kilometers. As it is usually required to define
(i.e., not through sustaining or improving another the scale of a particular analysis, it has become com-
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 215
mon practice to distinguish a range of spatially de- 3.2. Scales of socio-economic systems
fined ecological scales (Holling, 1992; Levin, 1992).
They vary from the level of the individual plant, via In the socio-economic system, a hierarchy of insti-
ecosystems and landscapes, to the global system—see tutions can be distinguished (Becker and Ostrom,
Fig. 2. In such a classification of ecological scales, it 1995; O’Riordan et al., 1998). They reflect the differ-
is common to include the ecosystem itself as a par- ent levels at which decisions on the utilization of
ticular scale, for example in terms of a dforest capital, labor and natural resources are taken (North,
ecosystemT. 1990). At the lowest institutional level, this includes
The functioning of ecosystems depends upon individuals and households. At higher institutional
earth system processes that take place over a range scales can be distinguished: the communal or munic-
of spatial (and temporal) scales. This ranges from ipal, state or provincial, national, and international
competition between individual plants at the plot level (see Fig. 2). Many economic processes, such
level, via meso-scale processes such as fire and as income creation, trade, and changes in market
insect outbreaks, to climatic and geomorphologic conditions can be more readily observed at one or
processes at the largest spatial and temporal scales more of these institutional scales (Limburg et al.,
(Clark et al., 1979; Holling et al., 2002). In general, 2002).
large-scale, long-period phenomena set physical con- The supply of ecosystem services affects stake-
straints on smaller scale, shorter period ones (Lim- holders at all institutional levels (Berkes and Folke,
burg et al., 2002). However, large-scale processes 1998; Peterson, 2000). Households, as well as local
may be driven by the joint impact of small-scale or internationally operating firms, may directly de-
processes (Levin, 1992). For example, microbes op- pend upon ecosystem services for their income
erate on the scale of micrometers and minutes, but (e.g., fishermen, ecotourism operators). Government
their cumulative activity determines a larger scale agencies at different levels are involved in manag-
process such as the nutrient cycle, e.g., through ing ecosystems, and in regulating the access to
demineralization of organic material and nitrogen ecosystem services. They may also receive income
fixation. from specific ecosystem services (park entrance
Ecosystem services are generated at all ecological fees, hunting licenses). Ultimately, all individuals
scales. For instance, fish may be supplied by a small depend upon the essential regulation (life-support)
pond, or may be harvested in the Pacific Ocean. services of ecosystems. Ecological and institutional
Biological nitrogen fixation enhances soil fertility at boundaries seldom coincide, and stakeholders in
the ecological scale of the plant, whereas carbon ecosystem services often cut across a range of
sequestration influences the climate at the global institutional zones and scales (Cash and Moser,
scale. 1998).
global international
biome national
plot family
plant individual
Fig. 2. Selected ecological and institutional scales (adapted from Leemans, 2000).
216 L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228
3.3. Scales and stakeholders of ecosystem services ecosystem is fished by an international fleet, or
if a particular genetic material or medicinal
In the previous paragraphs, we argued that ecosys- plants is processed and/or consumed at a larger
tem services can be generated at a range of ecological institutional scale (see, e.g., Blum, 1993).
scales, and can be supplied to stakeholders at a range (ii) Regulation services. A regulation service can
of institutional scales (see Fig. 2). We will now briefly be interpreted as an ecological process that has
discuss this for the three categories of ecosystem (actual or potential) economic value because it
services distinguished in our framework. has an economic impact outside the studied
ecosystem and/or if it provides a direct benefit
(i) Production services. The possibility to harvest to people living in the area (see the previous
products from natural or semi-natural ecosys- section). Because the ecological processes in-
tems depends upon the availability of the re- volved take place at certain, ecological scales, it
source, or the stock of the product involved. To is often possible to define the specific ecolog-
analyze the ecological impacts of the resource ical scale at which the regulation service is
use, or the harvest levels that can be (sustain- generated (see Table 2). Note that, whereas
ably) supported, the appropriate scale of analy- regulation services are typically generated at a
sis is the level of the ecosystem supplying the specific ecological scale, the benefits may
service (e.g., the lake, or the Northern Atlantic accrue to stakeholders at a range of institu-
ocean) (Levin, 1992). The benefits of the re- tional scales. For many regulation services,
source may accumulate to stakeholders at a not only the scale, but also the position in
range of institutional scales (Turner et al., the landscape plays a role—for example, the
2000). Local residents, if present, are often an impact of the water buffering capacity of for-
important actor in the harvest of the resources ests will be noticed only downstream in the
involved, unless they do not have an interest in, same catchment (Bosch and Hewitt, 1982).
or access to the resource (e.g., due to a lack of Stakeholders in a regulation service are all
technology, or because the ownership or user- people residing in or otherwise depending
right of the resource resides with other stake- upon the area affected by the service.
holders). In addition, there may be stakeholders’ (iii) Cultural services. Cultural services may also
interests at larger scales if the goods involved be supplied by ecosystems at different ecolog-
are harvested, processed or consumed at larger ical scales, such as a monumental tree or a
scales. For example, this is the case if a marine natural park. Stakeholders in cultural services
Table 2
Most relevant ecological scales for the regulation services—note that some services may be relevant at more than one scale
Ecological scale Dimensions (km2) Regulation services
Global N1,000,000 Carbon sequestration
Climate regulation through regulation of albedo, temperature and rainfall patterns
Biome–landscape 10,000–1000,000 Regulation of the timing and volume of river and ground water flows
Protection against floods by coastal or riparian ecosystems
Regulation of erosion and sedimentation
Regulation of species reproduction (nursery service)
Ecosystem 1–10,000 Breakdown of excess nutrients and pollution
Pollination (for most plants)
Regulation of pests and pathogens
Protection against storms
Plot–plant b1 Protection against noise and dust
Control of run-off
Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF)
Based upon Hufschmidt et al. (1983), De Groot (1992), Kramer et al. (1995) and Van Beukering et al. (2003).
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 217
can vary from the individual to the global tem at different spatial scales requires assessing at
scale. For local residents, an important cultural which scale, and to whom the benefits of the system’s
service is commonly the enhancement of the services accrue.
aesthetic, cultural, natural, and recreational As an example, consider the case of a South-
quality of their living environment. In addition, Asian mangrove forest that provides the following
in particular for indigenous people, ecosystems services: (i) provision of wood and shellfish; (ii)
may also be a place of rituals and a point of protection from floods; (iii) nursery service for a
reference in cultural narratives (Posey et al., range of fish species; and (iv) the conservation of
1999; Infield, 2001). Nature tourism has be- biodiversity (Hein, 2002). The provision of wood
come a major cultural service in Western and shellfish is most relevant at the municipal
countries, and it is progressively gaining im- scale, as the large majority of wood and shellfish
portance in developing countries as well. Be- is used locally. The two regulation services,
cause the value attached to the cultural services dprotection from floodsT and the dnursery serviceT
depends on the cultural background of the are generated at the scale of the ecosystem, but
stakeholders involved, there may be very dif- they are provided to stakeholders at a range of
ferent perceptions of the value of cultural ser- institutional scales, from the municipality up to the
vices among stakeholders at different scales. national scale. The conservation of biodiversity is
Local stakeholders may attach particular value most relevant to stakeholders at the national and
to local heritage cultural or amenity services, international scale. The interests of stakeholders at
whereas national and/or global stakeholders these scales vary accordingly. Whereas, in general,
may have a particular interest in the conserva- local residents prefer management that allows the
tion of nature and biodiversity (e.g., Swanson, collection of wood and shellfish while maintaining
1997; Terborgh, 1999). the regulation services, international stakeholders are
mostly worried about the global loss of mangrove
3.4. Expanding the valuation framework: analysis of forest and the associated loss of biodiversity (e.g.,
scales and stakeholders (step 5) Alongi, 2002). As, in a global context, ecosystems as
well as institutional settings are highly diverse (e.g.,
In this section, we argue that, in order to apply Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003), relevant
ecosystem services valuation to support decision scales need to be identified on a case by case basis.
making on ecosystem management, it is necessary Fig. 2 above presents the potential relevant scales
to explicitly consider the scales at which ecosystem and interactions, and can be instrumental in such
services accrue to the different stakeholders. This analysis.
means that the ecosystem services valuation frame- Assessment of scales and stakeholders enhances the
work described in Section 2 should be expanded applicability of ecosystem services valuation to sup-
with a fifth step: d(v) Analysis of scales and port decision making. Identification of scales and sta-
stakeholders.T As explained above, services generated keholders allows the analysis of potential conflicts in
at a particular ecological level can be provided to environmental management, in particular between
stakeholders at a range of institutional scales, and local stakeholders and stakeholders at larger scales.
stakeholders at an institutional scale can receive eco- This applies if services relevant at higher scales restrict
system services generated at a range of ecological the use of local production services. For instance,
scales. Note that, of course, there will often be differ- maintaining the hydrological service of a forest in an
ent stakeholders at each institutional level. In this upper watershed poses restrictions on the use of the
case, stakeholder analysis needs to be applied to forest by local stakeholders (e.g., Bosch and Hewitt,
identify the interests of heterogeneous stakeholder 1982). Analysis of the (opportunity) costs and benefits
groups (see, e.g., Grimble and Wellard, 1997; De of ecosystem management for stakeholders at differ-
Marchi et al., 2000; Kasemir et al., 2003). Often, ent scales also provides a basis for determining the
ecosystem services are generated, and supplied at size of potential compensation payments to local
particular scales. Analysis of the value of an ecosys- users.
218 L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228
4. Valuation of the ecosystem services of the De 4.2. Assessment of ecosystem services (step 2)
Wieden wetland, and assessment of the scales at
which they are supplied Four ecosystem services have been selected for this
study: (i) the provision of reed for cutting; (ii) the
The spatial scales at which ecosystem services provision of fish (both production services); (iii) the
are supplied are examined for the De Wieden provision of opportunities for recreation; and (iv)
wetland in The Netherlands. Subsequently, we nature conservation (both cultural services). These
analyze (i) the values of selected ecosystem ser- services have been selected in order to obtain a mix
vices supplied by De Wieden; and (ii) the scales of services important for stakeholders at different
at which these ecosystem services are supplied to levels, and because of the availability of data for
stakeholders. As the main aim of this section is these four services. Two other ecosystem services of
to examine the scales of ecosystem services, rel- the wetland that are not further considered in this
atively simple valuation techniques have been study are the amenity service and the water purifica-
used. tion service. The amenity service reflects that De
Wieden enhances the local living conditions by the
4.1. Specification of the study area (step 1) provision of an attractive environment. The service
accrues to local stakeholders. It is excluded because
De Wieden is one of the most extensive low- the fisheries and recreation services also provide ben-
land peatlands in north-western Europe, and it efits to local stakeholders, and data is more readily
includes a large range of waterbodies of different available for these two services. The water purifica-
sizes (lakes, canals, marshlands), reedlands, exten- tion service is based upon the breakdown and absorp-
sive agricultural land and forests. For this study, a tion of pollutants in the wetland. The water
case study area has been selected that comprises purification service is reflected in enhanced opportu-
the central part of De Wieden, in total around nities for recreation and nature conservation, but, to
5200 ha. It includes the four biggest lakes and avoid double counting, this should not be included in
the surrounding area (Fig. 3). the valuation. The water purification service also leads
birds, dragonflies, butterflies, fish, etc., and it uation, involving the use of two conceptually different
contains, together with the adjacent wetland dDe indicators of value: consumers’ surplus and value
Weerribben,T the world’s only population of a added. The two indicators compare as follows. On
large subspecies of the large copper butterfly the one hand, the surplus gained through the reed
(Lyacena dispar). The otter, which became ex- production and fisheries service, and the provision
tinct in The Netherlands some 12 years ago, was of recreational services, may be larger than indicated
reintroduced to the area in June 2002. The area is through the respective values added because not all
protected under national laws, is included in the utility gained by people working in these sectors will
EU habitat and birds directives, and was recently be reflected in their income. For example, fishermen
(November 2002) appointed a Ramsar site. may enjoy their profession and gain utility through the
fishing activities themselves. On the other hand, the
4.3. Valuation of the ecosystem services of De Wieden concept of value added does not account for the
(step 3) shadow costs of labor and capital. This aspect, c.p.,
causes the value added to be higher than the consumer
On the basis of existing data, and limited surveys, surplus. The use of two different indicators restricts
the four selected services have been valued in mone- the possibilities to add the values of the services.
tary terms, using revealed preference methods. Due to
deficiencies in available data, different approaches (i) Provision of reed. The total turn-over from the
have been used to assess the value generated by the reed cutting is around 800,000 euro, and the net
four services, see Table 4. For the two production value added (taken as a proxy for the value of
services, and for the benefits of the recreation service the service) is around 480,000 euro (De Bruin et
accruing to the providers of recreation services (for al., 2001). It is assumed that an increase or
instance hotels, or boat rental agencies), the net value decrease in reed production in De Wieden can
added generated by the service is used as indicator of be compensated by other producers without
its value. To assess the value for visitors to De Wie- changes in the price or quality of the product
den, the consumer surplus is used, calculated with the on the market, and that the consumer surplus
travel cost method. For the nature conservation ser- resulting from reed production is zero.
vice, payments to the NGO protecting and managing (ii) Provision of fish. Total annual turnover of the
the site (bNatuurmonumentenQ) are used as an indica- fishery sector is estimated to be only around
tion of the lower value of the willingness-to-pay of the 215,000 euro (Klinge, 1999; De Bruin et al.,
Dutch public for this service. A more detailed descrip- 2001; Van Dijk, 2003). Investments are small,
tion of the valuation methodology applied to each and the value added is estimated at around
service is provided below. 140,000 euro (De Bruin et al., 2001; Van Dijk,
Our calculations present a significant simplifica- 2003). In comparison with the total eel fisheries
tion of the complex issue of ecosystem services val- in The Netherlands, the contribution from De
Table 4
The approaches used to assess the surplus generated by each service
Stakeholder Calculation method Type of value indicator obtained
Reed cutters Net value added Income generated
Professional fishermen Net value added Income generated
Recreation service
–Value for visitors to De Wieden –Travel cost method –Consumer surplus
–Value for the providers of recreation services –Net value added –Income generated
(e.g. hotel owners, boat rental agencies)
Nature conservationists Donations to the NGO The donations are a lower value of the
protecting the site willingness-to-pay for, and the consumers’
surplus generated by the service
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 221
multiplying the turn-over with the average value In the year 2002, the NGO received in total around
added generated per unit of turn-over. For the euro 29 million in donations (Natuurmonumenten,
recreational companies in De Wieden, the net 2003a). However, the NGO manages a number of
value added is around 22% of turn-over (De nature parks in The Netherlands. To estimate the
Bruin et al., 2001)—which compares to a na- WTP of the members of Natuurmonumenten for De
tional average of 15% for the hotel sector (BHC, Wieden, it is assumed that the WTP for De Wieden is
2003). Hence, the value added generated by De proportional to the aerial surface of De Wieden in
Wieden is around euro 800,000 per year. comparison to the total area of the sites managed by
The total value of the recreational service of De the NGO. The total area of the sites managed by the
Wieden is found by summing the utility accru- NGO is 71,200 ha (June 2002), of which 5400 ha
ing to the visitors, and the net value added of the (7.6%) are located in De Wieden (Natuurmonumen-
recreational sector in the immediate surround- ten, 2003a). Hence, the minimum value of the nature
ings of De Wieden, insofar as based upon the conservation service of the De Wieden wetlands can
contribution from visitors to De Wieden. be estimated at around euro 2.2 million per year.
Hence, the total value of the service is
880,000 + 800,000 = 1,680,000 euro. 4.4. Aggregation and comparison of the values
(iv) Nature conservation. The non-use value associ- (step 4)
ated with the nature conservation service is nor-
mally analyzed with CVM (Arrow et al., 1993; All services have been valued in monetary terms.
Hailu et al., 2000). Although CVM has increas- However, different indicators have been used to
ingly been applied to analyze the non-material indicate the surplus generated by the services
benefits derived from ecosystems, some authors (value added, consumer surplus and payments to
have questioned the validity of CVM (e.g., Car- Natuurmonumenten). This restricts the possibilities
son, 1998). One of the problems associated with to add and compare the values, as discussed earlier
CVM is that respondents do not actually have to in the paper. Nevertheless, the values of the four
pay the amount they express to be willing to pay services have been added to provide a crude indica-
for a service, which may lead to an overestima- tion of their total value, as presented in Table 6. The
tion of its value (Diamond and Hausman, 1994; approximate, combined monetary value of the four
Carson, 1998). The implementation of a well- selected ecosystem services provided by De Wieden
designed CVM study is outside the scope of is in the order of euro 4,500,000 per year, or 830 per
this paper. Instead, in order to obtain a crude ha per year.
approximation of the monetary value of the na-
ture conservation service, it is assumed that the 4.5. Analysis of scales of ecosystem services and
amount of money contributed to the NGO stakeholders (step 5)
dNatuurmonumentenT that manages De Wieden
provides an indication of the willingness-to-pay We now turn to the spatial scales at which the four
(WTP) of The Netherlands’ public for nature services of the De Wieden ecosystem are supplied to
conservation in De Wieden. An advantage of stakeholders. Four institutional scales are distin-
this approach is that is measures actual payments
instead of a stated willingness to pay. However, Table 6
the estimate only indicates the minimum amount Economic value of the ecosystem services supplied by the study
the Dutch public is willing to pay. The actual area
amount will be higher because some members Ecosystem service Economic value (euro/year)
of the NGO may be willing to pay a larger sum Reed cutting 480,000
if this would be necessary to preserve De Wieden, Fisheries 140,000
and because some non-members may also be Recreation 1,680,000
willing to pay for nature conservation in De Nature conservation 2,200,000
Wieden. Total value of the selected services 4,500,000
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 223
Approximate value
2,000,000
(euro/year) 1,000,000
0
reed cutting fisheries recreation nature
conservation
Fig. 5. The relation between institutional scale and the value of ecosystem services (at the global level, the value of the nature conservation
service is not known).
service have been considered, whereas in reality there tutional scales, varying from the individual to the
are a range of other stakeholders (e.g., local residents) global level (see Fig. 2). Each institutional scale com-
that also have an interest in the analyzed services. monly comprises different stakeholders, with some-
Nevertheless, the figure demonstrates how scale deter- times conflicting interests (Grimble and Wellard,
mines the value of the services for the stakeholders at 1997; Tacconi, 2000).
the different levels. At the municipal scale, the most Consideration of scales and stakeholders enhances
important stakeholder interests relate to recreation, the applicability of ecosystem services valuation to
reed cutting and fisheries. At the provincial scale, support decision making. Stakeholders at different
the main stakeholder interests are in recreation, where- scales often attach a different value to ecosystem
as nature conservation is also important. At the na- services, depending upon their cultural background,
tional level, nature conservation is by far the most and upon the impact of the service on their income
important service. The value of the nature conserva- and/or living conditions. These different interests
tion service at the global scale is not known. often result in different visions on the management
of the area (see also Brown, 1996; Tacconi, 2000).
This is illustrated by stakeholders’ preferences in the
5. Implications for ecosystem management De Wieden wetland. Local stakeholders benefit from
the reed and fish resources of the area that are of little
The functioning of ecosystems depends upon earth importance at the national scale, and national stake-
system processes that take place over a range of holders’ main interest is in the biodiversity of De
spatial and temporal scales. Ecosystem services, that Wieden. This leads to conflicting views on the man-
depend upon the functioning of the ecosystem, are agement of the area. For instance, reed cutters prefer
generated at different, sometimes overlapping, ecolog- to cut reed when it is 1 year old in order to get the best
ical scales. In spite of the myriad of processes under- price for the reed, whereas nature conservationists
lying most ecosystem services, often a typical would like to restrict reed cutting as birds need 2- to
ecological scale can be identified at which the service 4-year-old reed for nesting.
is generated. For example, carbon sequestration The formulation of management plans that are
involves a range of processes taking place mostly at acceptable to all stakeholders requires the balancing
the scale of the plot (e.g., plant production) and the of these different interests. If an optimal management
ecosystem (e.g., fire). Nevertheless, the service is strategy is sought on the basis of the interests of one
generated at the global scale—it is the global amount particular scale alone, this may lead to unacceptable
of sequestered carbon that is one of the drivers of the solutions for stakeholders at other scales. For instance,
global climate. Ecosystem services are supplied to the a management plan for De Wieden based upon local
socio-economic system according to a range of insti- interests only would not do justice to national and
L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228 225
international value of the biodiversity conservation among others, on their dependency upon specific
service of De Wieden. On the other side, a manage- services to provide income or sustain their living
ment plan for a natural park based upon national environment. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the
interests would leave little opportunity for local activ- scales of ecosystem services when valuation of ser-
ities—and risk confrontation with local residents. In vices is applied to support the formulation or imple-
De Wieden, compromise solutions are found to bal- mentation of ecosystem management plans. Formu-
ance the use of ecosystem services. For example, lation or implementation of management plans on the
fishermen cooperate with nature conservationist by basis of stakeholders’ interest at one institutional scale
installing (subsidized) otter-protection devices on is bound to lead to sub-optimal ecosystem manage-
their hoop nets, and the nature conservation NGO ment from the perspective of stakeholders at other
managing the area poses relatively few restrictions scales.
on reed cutting in most of De Wieden. Analysis of the values of ecosystem services at
Furthermore, consideration of scales and stake- different scales appears, in principle, feasible for the
holders allows identification of the appropriate insti- four services tested in this paper: two production
tutional level for decision making. In general, services, recreation and nature conservation. However,
decision making on ecosystems should take place at the difficulties encountered in other studies in the
a high enough level to ensure that all main benefits of monetary valuation of the nature conservation ser-
the ecosystem are accounted for (Millennium Eco- vices (Spash and Hanley, 1995; Nunes and van den
system Assessment, 2003). Services provided at high Bergh, 2001) were confirmed in our study. Further-
institutional scales, in particular the nature conserva- more, it appears that monetary valuation of the na-
tion and carbon sequestration services, require insti- ture conservation service at the global scale is
tutional arrangements at the national and international particularly difficult as it is difficult to find a bench-
scale in order to ensure their continued supply. This mark with which the nature conservation service can
paper also demonstrates the potential risk of the be compared.
decentralization of responsibilities for nature reserve The paper only presents one further step towards
management to lower (provincial and municipal) au- the integration of scales in ecological–economic
thorities, as currently proposed in The Netherlands analysis. Whereas the paper pinpoints the role of
(VROM, 2004). Most of the benefits of the nature scales and stakeholders in relation to ecosystem ser-
conservation service accrue at the national scale. vices valuation, it also highlights a number of issues
Local authorities, that have the specific mandate to that are in need of further research. First, there is a
look after provincial or municipal interests, cannot be need to assess the role of scales of ecosystem ser-
expected to be the appropriate institutional level to vices in relation to CVM, in order to reveal how
ensure the maintenance of this service. In addition, in stakeholders’ willingness to pay for ecosystem ser-
The Netherlands, they are faced with a strong de- vices varies with scale and how this can be
mand for space from local residents, e.g., for the accounted for in CVM. A distance function ap-
construction of houses. Therefore, the proposed de- proach, as recently applied to environmental ameni-
centralization risks to lead to a decline in nature ties by, e.g., Färe and Grosskopf (1998) and Ferraro
reserves in a way that is sub-optimal from the na- (2004), may provide a suitable entry point here.
tional perspective. Second, there is a need to further analyze the spatial
heterogeneity of ecosystem services and the conse-
quences of this heterogeneity for the value of these
6. Conclusions services. This is particularly relevant for regulation
services supplied at the landscape and ecosystem
Ecosystem services are generated at a range of level, such as the flood protection service. Third,
ecological scales, and are supplied to stakeholders at further study is required in order to allow quantifi-
a range of institutional scales. Across the institutional cation of the global value of nature and biodiversity,
scales, stakeholders can have very different perspec- and enhance its consideration in local and national
tives on the values of ecosystem services, based, ecosystem management.
226 L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228
Hein, L., 2002. Toward improved environmental and social man- Moonen, L.E.A., 1992. Recreation Boating and Eutrophication in
agement of Indian shrimp farming. Environmental Management Northwest Overijssel (In Dutch: Recreatievaart en eutrofiering
29, 349 – 359. in Noordwest Overijssel). Water Board West Overijssel, Zwolle,
Helliwell, D.R., 1969. Valuation of wildlife resources. Regional The Netherlands. 85 pp.
Studies 3, 41 – 49. Munasinghe, M., Schwab, A., 1993. Environmental Economics and
Holling, C.S., 1992. Cross-scale morphology, geometry and dynam- Natural Resource Management in Developing Countries. World
ics of ecosystems. Ecological Monographs 62, 447 – 502. Bank, Washington, DC. 319 pp.
Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H., Peterson, G.D., 2002. Sustain- Natuurmonumenten, 2000. Nature Vision De Wieden (in Dutch:
ability and panarchies. In: Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. Natuurvisie De Wieden). Vereniging Natuurmonumenten, ’s-
(Eds.), Panarchy, Understanding Transformations in Human Graveland, The Netherlands. 96 pp.
and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, London. Natuurmonumenten, 2003a. Annual Report Natuurmonumenten
507 pp. 2002. Vereniging Natuurmonumenten, ’s-Graveland, The Neth-
Howarth, R., Norgaard, R., 1993. Intergenerational transfers and the erlands. 142 pp.
social discount rate. Environmental and Natural Resource Eco- Natuurmonumenten, 2003b. Details on Membership per Area Pro-
nomics 3, 337 – 358. vided by the General Administration. Natuurmonumenten, ’s-
Hufschmidt, M.M, James, D.E., Meister, A.D., Bower, B.T., Dixon, Graveland, The Netherlands.
J.A., 1983. Environment, Natural Systems and Development, Nijkamp, P., Spronk, J., 1979. Analysis of production and location
An Economic Valuation Guide. The John Hopkins University decisions by means of multi-criteria analysis. Engineering and
Press, London. 338 pp. Process Economics 4, 285 – 302.
Infield, M., 2001. Cultural values: a forgotten strategy for building North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Eco-
community support for protected areas in Africa. Conservation nomic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Biology 15, 800 – 802. UK.
Kasemir, B., Jäger, J., Jaeger, C.C., Gardner, M.T., 2003. Public Nunes, P.A.L.D., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2001. Economic valua-
Participation in Sustainability Science, A Handbook. Cambridge tion of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics
University Press, Cambridge, UK. 39, 203 – 222.
Klinge, M., 1999. Fish management plan Northwest Overijssel (in Odum, E.P., Odum, H.T., 1972. Natural areas as necessary compo-
Dutch: Visstandbeheersplan Noordwest Overijssel). Witteveen nents of man’s total environment. Transactions of the Thirty
en Bos, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 120 pp. Seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Con-
KNMI, 2003. Long-term climatogical data for The Netherlands ference, vol. 37. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington,
(http://www.knmi.nl/product/). KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands. DC, pp. 178 – 189 March 12–15.
Kolstad, C.D., 2000. Environmental Economics. Oxford University O’Neill, J., 2001. Representing people, representing nature, repre-
Press, New York, Oxford. 400 pp. senting the world. Environment and Planning–Part C, Govern-
Kramer, R.A., Sharma, N., Munasinghe, M., 1995. Valuing ment and Policy 19, 483 – 500.
tropical forests. Methodology and case study for Madagascar. O’Neill, R.V., King, A.W., 1998. Hommage to St Michael: or why
World Bank Environment Paper, vol. 13. World bank, are there so many books on scale? In: Peterson, D.L., Parker,
Washington, DC. V.T. (Eds.), Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications. Colum-
Leemans, R., 2000. Modelling of global land use: connections, bia University Press, New York, pp. 3 – 15.
causal chains and integration. Inaugural Lecture, Department O’Riordan, T., Cooper, C., Jordan, A., Rayner, S., Richards,
of Plant Production SystemsWageningen University, Wagenin- K., Runci, P., Yoffe, S., 1998. Institutional frameworks for
gen, The Netherlands. 85 pp. political action. Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 1.
Levin, S.A., 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. The Societal Framework. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp.
Ecology 73, 1943 – 1967. 345 – 439.
Likens, G.E., 1992. The Ecosystem Approach: Its Use and Abuse. Pearce, D.W., Moran, D., 1994. The Economic Value of Biodi-
Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany. 166 pp. versity, Earthscan, London, in association with the IUCN
Limburg, K.E., O’Neill, R.V., Costanza, R., Farber, S., 2002. 296 pp.
Complex systems and valuation. Ecological Economics 41, Pearce, D.W., Turner, R.K., 1990. Economics of Natural Re-
409 – 420. sources and the Environment. BPCC Wheatsons Ltd., Exeter,
Mäler, K.G., 2000. Development, ecological resources and their UK. 378 pp.
management: a study of complex dynamic systems. European Peterson, G., 2000. Political ecology and ecological resilience: an
Economic Review 44, 645 – 665. integration of human and ecological dynamics. Ecological Eco-
Margules, C., Usher, M.B., 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife nomics 35, 323 – 336.
conservation potential: a review. Biological Conservation 21, PoO, 2001. Inventarisation Registration Ship Movements in
79 – 109. Overijssel (in Dutch: Inventarisatie scheepvaartregistratie in
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Overijssel). Province of Overijssel, Zwolle, The Netherlands
Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Report of the Con- 125 pp.
ceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosys- Posey, D.A., et al., 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodi-
tem Assessment. Island Press, Washington. 245 pp. versity. A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiver-
228 L. Hein et al. / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 209–228
sity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications, Lon- United Nations, 1992. Convention on biological diversity. UN
don. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro,
Rietveld, P., Ubbels, B., Peeters, P.M., 2000. Effectivity and Feasi- 1992.
bility of an Advanced Kilometer Tax (in Dutch: Effectiviteit en Van Beukering, P.J.H., Cesara, H.S.J., Janssen, M.A., 2003. Eco-
haalbaarheid van een geavanceerde kilometerheffing). Report nomic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indo-
Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. nesia. Ecological Economics 44, 43 – 62.
Ruitenbeek, J.H., 1994. Valuation and distribution of ecological Van Dijk, A., 2003. Personal communication with A. van Dijk,
entitlements in the forest zone of Cameroon: implications for Secretary of the Inland Fishermen organisation Northwest
economic and environmental security. Paper presented at the Overijssel.
Third International Meeting of the International Society for Van Konijnenburg, P.G., 1996. Recreation in De Wieden (in Dutch:
Ecological Economics, Costa Rica, 24–28 October 1994. Recreatieonderzoek De Wieden). Natuurmonumenten, ’s-Grav-
Spash, C.L., Hanley, N., 1995. Preferences, information and biodi- eland, The Netherlands. 121 pp.
versity preservation. Ecological Economics 12, 191 – 208. Van Koppen, C.S.A., 2000. Resource, arcadia, lifeworld. Nature
Strijker, D., Sijtsma, F.J., Wiersma, D., 2000. Evaluation of nature concepts in environmental sociology. Sociologia Ruralis 40,
conservation; an application to the Dutch Ecological Network. 300 – 318.
Environmental and Resource Economics 16, 363 – 378. Vermeulen, S., Koziell, I., 2002. Integrating Global and Local
Swanson, T., 1997. Global Action for Biodiversity. Earthscan, Values. A Review of Biodiversity Assessment. IIED, London.
London. VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment),
Tacconi, L., 2000. Biodiversity and Ecological Economics. Partic- 2004. National Spatial Strategy (In Dutch: Nota Ruimte). Min-
ipation, Values, and Resource Management. Earthscan, London. istry of Housing, Spatial Planning Environment, The Hague,
Tansley, A.G., 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational terms and The Netherlands. (351 pp.)
concepts. Ecology 16, 284 – 307. Wathern, P., Young, S.N., Brown, I.W., Roberts, D.A., 1986.
Terborgh, J.W., 1999. Requiem for Nature. Island Press, Ecological evaluation techniques. Landscape Planning 12,
Washington. 403 – 420.
TRN, 2002. Recreation monitoring in The Netherlands—Annual Weikard, H.P., 2002. The existence value does not exist and non-use
Report 2002. Tourism Recreation Netherlands, Leidschendam, values are useless. Paper Presented at the Annual meeting of the
The Netherlands. 89 pp. European Public Choice Society, Belgirate, Italy, 2002. 16 pp.
Turner, R.K., van den Bergh, C.J.M., Soderqvist, T., Barendregt, A., Weisbrod, B.A., 1964. Collective consumption services of individ-
van der Straaten, J., Maltby, E., van Ierland, E.C., 2000. Eco- ual consumptio0n goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 78,
logical–economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for 471 – 477.
management and policy. Ecological Economics 35, 7 – 23. Willis, K.G., Garrod, G.D., 1995. Transferability of benefit esti-
Turner, R.K., Paavola, J., Coopera, P., Farber, S., Jessamya, V., mates. In: Willis, K.G., Corkindale, J.T. (Eds.), Environmental
Georgiou, S., 2003. Valuing nature: lessons learned and future Valuation: New Perspectives. CAB International, Wallingford,
research directions. Ecological Economics 46, 493 – 510. UK. 272 pp.